Real reviews by real skiers. What a concept! Add your own today. Reviews only please, questions can be posted as replies but new threads looking for opinions should be posted to the main Telemark Talk Forum.

I have a personality type that naturally tends to avoid light social interaction (I have worked very hard on getting better at this )- but I do form very powerful bonds with people- and, this also extends to animals. I cannot remember a point in my life where I did not have a dog as a 24-7 companion (I often take one or more of my dogs with me to work). The loss of my animal companions has been very, very painful.

I know what you are going through man. Sorry to hear about it.

The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

fisheater wrote:Most likely, the ski I should want to add to my quiver is an E-109 waxless. However, Fischer stopped making these skis,

I will keep my eyes open for a E-109 Crown for you!

As a very good alternative, consider the Fischer S-Bound 78/Traverse 78.

There are still a few 199cm S-78s kicking around- I was eyeing a pair for months- and really should have just bought em...

(FISCHER- are you hearing us- if you are going to make a distance-oriented XCD ski- please make it long enough for people that actually weigh something!)

Perhaps the 189cm Traverse 78 is long enough for you anyway? The Easy-Skin on the T-78 is an awesome upgrade...

It was interesting Gareth, when you rated the E-109 as an easier turning ski than the Anses Combat Nato,

The E-109 is more cambered than the Combat Nato- but the total resistance underfoot is pretty close. The Combat Nato is just low profile...The biggest difference between the two on the downhill are the open tips on the E-109. The effective edge of the E-109 is MUCH shorter than the Combat Nato.

however I have enjoyed the pleasure of Nordic rocker rising up through the powder.

Me too- but the S-112 is WAAAY more of a floating powder ski than the E-109/Combat. In very deep snow the the E-109/Combat are not wide enough to float- unless you are flying down a hill!

From a downhill perspective I have always enjoyed even flexing skis, albeit with a preference for skis that are a little stiff, with a kick. I enjoy utilizing that kick when I unweight to put a little air under my skis.

I like a little "pop" in turn transitions as well. If you would prefer a ski with an even flex- and are considering ordering an Asnes- I would SERIOUSLY consider the Nansen over the ingstad/Nato. Although I find the Combat very smooth flexing and stable, it is a double-cambered ski- therefore, no matter what, the mid-section of the Combat is stiffer than the tips/tails.

If I was looking to "XCD" ski from the point of view of downhill skiing on XC tech- the Nansen would be the ski.

I like the Combat Nato primarily for its BC-XC performance.

My thought is while an E-109 may have easier turn initiation, my particular style of skiing would probably make up for the shortcomings of the Nato / Combat in relation to tip rise. This is based upon an assumption that an even flexing ski, being pushed at a bit of speed will be arcing to the surface regardless.

Please don't misunderstand my perspective on the Combat Nato- I find it remarkably smooth flexing for a double-cambered ski. The Combat is not as round flexing as a ski like an Epoch, Annum...Even the Eon- though "double-cambered" has a more even flex than the Combat...

Klister greatly extends the operability of a waxable base- I use it on the groomed track- but have had the nightmare of bringing back a load of lichen and twigs when using it in the woods...

The integrated kicker skin greatly extends the operability of a waxable base.

The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

MikeK wrote:I've skied my 98s in similar conditions and actually on the same trails, and was never that tired. So I find there is definitely a limit in these type of skis for deep trailbreaking. I trust Gareth when he says the Ingstad are a better ski for this, but I'd still probably grab my 98s for really deep or heavy snow.

I here you here- I am not about to part with my Annums for touring in deep, soft snow! I suspect that the float-worthiness of your S-98 vs. my Annum may be another context that is climate related...

But- I am very pleased to discover how well the Combat/Ingstad breaks trail when XC skiing through very deep snow. And- forgive me if I am unclear here- I am not speaking of flotation here. The Combat sinks in truly deep, soft snow just as much as any of these mid-width skis. BUT- I find that it feels stable and I feel more effectively supported by the entire length of this ski- compared to skis like the Eon and the E-109. The effectiveness of that broad, raised tip is not just a function of its shape, it also a product of the flex pattern of the entire ski...

Finally, I don't really know your area Bob, but for around Rochester, given the relatively large amount of easier terrain (we have steep gullies but you need deep snow to ski them), I definitely prefer my waxless S Bound 78. It's really a shame they stopped making the waxless E109 and the 199cm 78. I would say, from what I know skiing them, and what I've read abou the 109, that would be the ski to get. For climes like I live in, a waxless ski is just so much less hassle and actually performs really well 90% of the time.

I guess Fischer is assuming that the E-109 Tour with the Easy-Skin will perform where skiers prefer waxless scales?

I don't see it that way- I don't see the kicker skin replacing waxless scales- I see the kicker skin augmenting the performance of either a waxless OR a waxable base. And- I think it is an awesome upgrade to both the waxable and the waxless setup. When the conditions are right for kick wax, I want it- and nothing feels better. When the conditions are perfect for waxless scales, why would I obsess over kick wax- especially in the variable conditions of the backcountry? The quick addition of the integrated kicker skin is effective in both contexts, IMO. I wish my E-109/E-99 Crown had the Easy-Skin system.

I am very impressed with the Skin-Lock system. Do I think that you can get away without a waxless ski? Probably- but I still want good waxless scaled skis for the BC- for conditions that are ideal for scales, and without them I would be constantly taking the kicker skin on AND off.

The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

The current Asnes Combat Nato is my current top pick distance-oriented BC-XCD ski- offering a balance of XC, climbing and downhill skiing in hilly terrain and an incredibly wide range of snow conditions.

1) It is simply the best "XC" ski that I have ever tested in truly deep snow.

5) The combination of a waxable base and integrated skin allow on the fly cutomized traction for most any snow and terrain condition.

Drawbacks?

1)Wide turning radius. Making very tight radius turn with this ski requires step/jump open turns and telemarks- as well as Chrisites and parallels when appropriate.

2) Slower on dense snow than a stiffer ski like the E-99. BUT- due to my preference for hilly terrain and deep fresh snow- I gladly sacrifice some XC speed for greater climbing and deep snow performance.

What would I change?

Not much actually...

The rumour is a rockered tip on the next gen of this ski...

IF Asnes adds tip rocker to this ski, I STRONGLY urge them to test this with a wider waist. Tip rocker would facilitate easier turn initiation, and a narrower turning radius- THEREFORE, this ski wouldn't need as much sidecut. Less sidecut would mean more width underfoot= more effective flotation and grip.

If Asnes adds tip rocker I hope they keep the kick-ass trail-breaking tip.

AND- they need to be careful that they do not make the tip too soft when adding that tip rocker- otherwise it may suffer the same fate as the current E-109...

The current Asnes Combat Nato is a masterpiece.

The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

I was thinking of your 210's last week while skiing some bottomless heavy snow. My 210 E99's were floating me up for the most part, but I thought about having 210 Ingstad's and easy it would be. They're probably about the same weight as my old E99's. When it comes time to order I'll be torn between the 210 and 200. The 200 would be much better for turning, especially in any kind of trees, but so much slower and less float. I guess it depends what you want to do with the ski.

I just discovered why Neptune Mountaineering didn't stock Asnes this year - the parent company is going bankrupt. No money to order inventory, not good. It sounds like the store was sold to a corporation that then ran it into the ground.

Dan, the guy in the videos, Sourdough trail, etc., has already left the compnay. What a shame!

>>>Austin, Texas-based Backwoods Retail filed for Chapter 11 on Wednesday in Fort Worth, which will allow the company to reorganize and keep its 10 retail locations in business. Backwoods bought Neptune in 2013 from longtime owner/operator Gary Neptune.

This ski is a bit of old news as the new version will likely overshadow this version.

All the specs are here, no need to repeat. Ski is 200cm, moderate camber (camber-and-a-half), waxable base with skinlock. Mounted with NNN-BC Magnum bindings with the bar on chord center (balance is about 1cm aft).

These skis have very little rockering action as compressed. Act very much like a track ski in that respect.

The camber itself is very long in its height, from tip to tail, compared to other similar skis. Skis can be pressed together with moderate pressure - about 30-35 lbs per ski. Typical camber strength of other skis in this class.

Tip seems a bit softer than other reviews would suggest. Particularly in torsion. If I hold the tip of the ski against the wall and twist at the binding I can get a hell of a lot of deflection. More than any other ski in this class. Actual bending flexion seems moderate though. Tail seems to be fairly stiff relative to the tip.

Edges are very wide and sharp, as is characteristic of Asnes skis. I found them to be to very catchy and grabby on packed surfaces (not ideally what this ski is meant for, but still tested) so I detuned them slightly and was much happier with how the ski preformed both in K+G and descending.

For K+G, the ski is very fast, climbs well and tracks fairly straight. It performs best in just a bit of fresh snow, like most skis in this class and is not really ideal on packed down surfaces. I didn't notice any remarkable difference in trail breaking with the tip. It seemed about on par with other skis in this class although some stiffer snow may change that thought.

Descending was what I found to be its weakest attribute. I found it was neither very willing to initiate of very easy to hold in a turn once started. I'm not entirely sure why this is true as nothing on the ski stands out as being off. The grabbiness of the edges was a detriment in turn initiation on a groomed surface, combined with its length and lack of willingness to want to initiate a carved turn. Mostly the skis skidded, grabbed, and skidded. This reminds me characteristically of a ski that has too little torsional stiffness to hold an edge and hence why I investigated this. Not really a huge issue as this is not what this ski is meant for, but it is the weakest in its class when it comes to this.

In a some light powder, 6 or so inches, it was also quite unwilling to initiate a turn. This ski should shine in this condition, but it was a bit underwhelming. I think a little more snow is needed to get it to flex enough and perhaps some hard base to let it skid around a bit too. I wonder if these has anything to do with the very large bow of the camber? making the tips and tails a bit harder to control?

I also suspect the relative softness of the tip will help this relatively narrow ski from nose diving in deeper snow, but that has yet to be seen. I suspect it to turn better there, but then again, all skis available in this class do.

Overall, I find it the worst in class for downhill performance.

It is, however, a very nice XC ski. I also suspect a very experienced skier could coax a lot out of it but I believe there are a lot better balanced skis in this class.

D'hoste welcome, I know you have been posting for a while, but have not had the opportunity. I don't know if you have ever had the opportunity to ski the Anses USGI, but if you have, could you compare torsionally rigidity? That may be a difficult task as the USGI was basically a wood ski, and variability between skis could be so great as to make comparison meaningless. However I would appreciate your observations.

The USGI ski is much more rigid all around than the Nato/Ingstad. It's easily seen as the the tips are much thicker as is the rest of the profile of the ski. The Ingstad is very thin at the tip and tail.

It's also a very light ski, lighter than others in its class, despite having a full poplar core. I'd guess that there simply isn't as much composite and resin in this ski as in its competitors. Unless you are using something extra stiff like carbon fiber, or changing the construction - all these competitors (Eon, S Bounds) are cap construction, then you wind up with something that is weaker.

This is probably OK for light skier or soft snow, which is primarily what we want to ski with these skis, but I think the issue was really noticeable because of the razor sharp edges. It really made the catch and release noticeable and violent. Much better with them detuned so the ski can flex and skid.